Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:45:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.freebsd.org>, Oscar Bonilla <obonilla@galileo.edu>, Anthony Schneider <aschneid@mail.slc.edu>, Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1019955884.8b118e@mired.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Security through obscurity? (was: ssh + compiled-in SKEY support considered harmful?) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020423234154.64976o-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20020424125345.B50826@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I think the issue is POLA. Sure, we can put in individual knobs to > twiddle, but who will do that? I thought that securelevel would have > been a suitable solution to say "I want approximately *this* much > security". If that's not the case, then we need a few generic > statements which can then be further refined. FWIW, the place where this should really go is the X11 configuration tool -- if we extend the configurability of an application, the confuration twiddles for that should live (and be documented) in the normal places for that application, and not have any hooks of this sort in the base system. BTW, one really good reason not to tie securelevel and X11 behavior is that securelevels (when high) specifically break X11, and likewise, other management functionality that you might want to use with X11. Overloading twiddles in this manner is a bad thing :-). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020423234154.64976o-100000>